Election Day!

[kenberg]

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

 

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

 

Here is (part of) what I think was going on:

 

During the latter part of the Bush presidency it became clear that the economy was crashing badly. People were confused and Obama offered hope. And chants. Everyone chanted a lot and hoped Obama would deliver. Things are still looking pretty bad, especially for a person living close to the edge with a mortgage that is significantly higher than the value of the house. Move to where there are jobs? How? You can't sell.

 

Enter the Tea Party. Obama offered chants, the Tea Party offers Mama Grizzly. Clinton would feel your pain, the Tea Party will feel your anger. And your fear, although that is sub-text.

 

I think that this will not go well. Obama apparently thought that when he campaigned on health care reform and won, people wanted health care reform. Silly of him. Many of the Tea Party candidates think that the people really want smaller government. If they follow through and actually start shutting down some programs, they will find out differently. They want the other guy's benefits discontinued.

 

Fundamentally, the things people really want are somewhere between out of reach and really difficult. Nothing really can be done about the fact that they overpaid when they bought a house. Perhaps they can improve their own financial condition, but not easily.

 

 

"I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore" makes a nice movie idea. Lousy as policy though.

[mike777]

"do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened."

 

 

 

If the major LEGISLATIVE issue is govt spending as a percentage of national income( "the economy stupid")...and all of what that broadly means perhaps yes?

 

I just present this as a discussion point.

 

 

----

 

Please note the country, my family, is involved in two major wars......who cared????

[luke warm]

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

 

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

that's true, but i think this confuses cause and effect... perhaps the electorate doesn't consciously vote for split gov't (in most cases), but against the effect(s) of one party controlling the gov't... and rand most assuredly is interested not only in "slowing down" obamba but in reversing what he (and others with his philosophy) see as a departure from what they perceive as the principles upon which the country was founded

[y66]

The title of that Kathleen Parker column is "Blindsided by their own blindness". Evidently, she does not follow Nate Silver who said in a March 2010 blog post that he expected Democrats to lose up to 60 seats in November.

[y66]

Are you ready?

 

http://abbyfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/zombies.jpg

[kenberg]

that's true, but i think this confuses cause and effect... perhaps the electorate doesn't consciously vote for split gov't (in most cases), but against the effect(s) of one party controlling the gov't... and rand most assuredly is interested not only in "slowing down" obamba but in reversing what he (and others with his philosophy) see as a departure from what they perceive as the principles upon which the country was founded

 

 

This has been an enormous shift. I can well imagine you voting for a conservative candidate in 2008, and a conservative candidate in 2010. I imagine you did so. Voting for Obama in 2008 and Rand Paul in 2010 is harder to grasp. At least it is hard to grasp if we try to explain it as being the consequence of careful attention and reflective consideration of principles.

 

Here is an example:

In Carroll County Maryland, where I live, there is now some discussion of improving the manner in which the school system assists the disabled student. A wonderful example of local spirit, yes? Not at all. The federal government mandates such accommodation and so Carroll needs to pay for transportation and services provided by nearby counties if they can provide what we cannot. Now we could discuss whether such a mandate is a good thing or a bad thing but that is not my point. If the small government folks decide that the mandate is an unacceptable intrusion of the federal government into local life and kill the mandate, the initiative will die. I know of at least one guy whose son has benefited greatly from this mandate. I am sure he votes for whatever candidate promises lower taxes and smaller government. I doubt that he advocates killing this mandate.

 

I think that quite a few people voted for Obama in 2008 without really wanting him to do what he said he would do. Equally, I think quite a few people voted for Tea Party candidates without really wanting them to do what they say that are going to do. This might work out for them because most likely they don't actually intend on doing it.

 

 

I have seen explanations that the Democratic defeat was due to cap and trade proposals. My wife asked me to explain it this morning, I said about three sentences, and acknowledged that this was the limit of my knowledge. Three sentences of knowledge probably makes me the neighborhood expert.

 

It was not cap and trade, and I also don't think that it was deep adherence to the thoughts of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, etc. Not that they agreed with each other. I have read some of this, not much, not enough. More than a lot of people who voted for Rand Paul, I bet.

 

Every election the winners explain that this is because the voters grasped the deep meaning of their party's principles and the losers explain that the voters are confused. So we will wait for two more years and do it again. John Boehner should hold off on ordering the White House stationery with his name embossed.

[hrothgar]

This has been an enormous shift. I can well imagine you voting for a conservative candidate in 2008, and a conservative candidate in 2010. I imagine you did so. Voting for Obama in 2008 and Rand Paul in 2010 is harder to grasp. At least it is hard to grasp if we try to explain it as being the consequence of careful attention and reflective consideration of principles.

 

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

 

Republicans showed up to vote.

Democrats didn't.

And this made all the difference.

[kenberg]

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

 

Republicans showed up to vote.

Democrats didn't.

And this made all the difference.

 

 

Best explanation I have heard so far.

[pooltuna]

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

 

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

 

Here is (part of) what I think was going on:

 

During the latter part of the Bush presidency it became clear that the economy was crashing badly. People were confused and Obama offered hope. And chants. Everyone chanted a lot and hoped Obama would deliver. Things are still looking pretty bad, especially for a person living close to the edge with a mortgage that is significantly higher than the value of the house. Move to where there are jobs? How? You can't sell.

 

Enter the Tea Party. Obama offered chants, the Tea Party offers Mama Grizzly. Clinton would feel your pain, the Tea Party will feel your anger. And your fear, although that is sub-text.

 

I think that this will not go well. Obama apparently thought that when he campaigned on health care reform and won, people wanted health care reform. Silly of him. Many of the Tea Party candidates think that the people really want smaller government. If they follow through and actually start shutting down some programs, they will find out differently. They want the other guy's benefits discontinued.

 

Fundamentally, the things people really want are somewhere between out of reach and really difficult. Nothing really can be done about the fact that they overpaid when they bought a house. Perhaps they can improve their own financial condition, but not easily.

 

 

"I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore" makes a nice movie idea. Lousy as policy though.

 

The object when you move should not be to sell your house at the same price but to be able to buy a house equal(not in terms of price though) to the one you now own. Prices are falling at your potential new location as well

[luke warm]

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

 

Republicans showed up to vote.

Democrats didn't.

And this made all the difference.

Best explanation I have heard so far.

yes, but it doesn't get to your question; that question is "why?" btw there was a huge shift in 2008's undecided (or "independent") voters... it's true that some were more motivated than others to get out and vote... the question is, why were they?

[PassedOut]

yes, but it doesn't get to your question; that question is "why?" btw there was a huge shift in 2008's undecided (or "independent") voters... it's true that some were more motivated than others to get out and vote... the question is, why were they?

Do you have any answers to that question?

 

Bill Moyers offers an explanation for the anger of quite a few voters: Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!".

[luke warm]

Do you have any answers to that question?

 

Bill Moyers offers an explanation for the anger of quite a few voters: Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!".

i don't know that i buy his premise, although if it is true it indicts both the republicans and the democrats imo

 

i believe there are many answers to "why?"... some, out of true belief or because of well-funded political ads, actually believe the 'obamba is a socialist' line... others simply believe that the federal gov't has assumed more power unto itself than it was meant to have... still others are simply redneck racists (although i've seen racists from both political parties, rarely have i seen a redneck democrat racist)

 

it's my opinion that the tea party is doomed *unless* it excludes social issues as a plank in its nat'l platform... if it can somehow do this (for example, by simply stating that such issues are not the business of the federal gov't, for the most part, and should be left to the states)... if it runs on a more traditional conservative platform, it might have legs

[PassedOut]

i don't know that i buy his premise, although if it is true it indicts both the republicans and the democrats imo

I do consider the increasing gap between the very rich and the rest of the people to be a serious problem for the US. And it's not just that our businesses need customers with money. History shows that people get angry enough to start revolutions when that gap gets too wide.

[Bbradley62]

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

 

Republicans showed up to vote.

Democrats didn't.

And this made all the difference.

yes, but it doesn't get to your question; that question is "why?" btw there was a huge shift in 2008's undecided (or "independent") voters... it's true that some were more motivated than others to get out and vote... the question is, why were they?

One obvious part of this equation is that African-Americans (almost entirely Democrats) were super-motivated in 2008 to show up to vote for America's first black president; even if they simply returned to usual turnout levels in 2010, that was a big decrease for Democrats. In addition, "far right" turnout was lower than usual in 2008 because they were not happy with McCain as the Republican nominee. So, even before Tea Party activism increased Republican turnout in 2010, simply removing the unusual circumstances of 2008 was a noticeable swing to the Republicans.

[y66]

From Nate Silver's analysis of the "enthusiasm gap"

 

Over all, the enthusiasm gap averaged 8 points in presidential swing states. But it was virtually nonexistent — favoring Republicans by just 1 point, on average — in states that weren’t competitive in 2008. It didn’t much matter whether the states (like Vermont and Hawaii) went heavily for Barack Obama in 2008, or (like Texas and Arkansas) went for John McCain: there wasn’t much of an enthusiasm gap in these non-competitive states.

 

On the surface, this looks like horrible news for Democrats: the enthusiasm gap was the largest in precisely those states that a Democrat (or a Republican for that matter) needs to win the Presidency.

 

But there is something else to keep in mind. Mr. Obama’s campaign had a terrific turnout operation, and — like any good turnout operation — it was concentrated in swing states. Mr. McCain’s campaign, by contrast, de-emphasized its “ground game” (a mistake that Karl Rove and George W. Bush would never have made), hoping to nationalize the election and win on the basis of television commercials.

 

What we’re probably seeing, then, is the “hangover” from the Mr. Obama’s turnout efforts in 2008. In states like Ohio and New Hampshire and Indiana, where Democrats registered tons of new voters and made sure that all of them got to the polls, a lot of them didn’t participate this time around. In other states, the electorate wasn’t much different and the people who were voting this year strongly resembled those who voted in 2008 — although Republicans still did better because the preferences of independent voters shifted toward them.

 

This sort of phenomenon is actually quite typical. In general, the bigger a President’s coattails, the more his party tends to suffer at the next midterm.

 

The key question for 2012 is whether those new voters will re-enter the electorate when Mr. Obama is on the ballot again. If so, Democrats should be in reasonably good shape — and they’ll also win back quite a few of the House seats that they lost in these states.

[kenberg]

The object when you move should not be to sell your house at the same price but to be able to buy a house equal(not in terms of price though) to the one you now own. Prices are falling at your potential new location as well

 

 

This applies just fine to me, as I have noted before. I don't have a mortgage. As prices rise and fall, my house continues to have the value of one house. If I want to move, I can do so and since real estate commissions and other expenses are a percentage of the price, a low priced market would be somewhat preferable.

 

I was addressing the plight of someone now "underwater", someone not at a level where the future employer would be offering strategic help, and who is in a depressed area. I only have distant anecdotal stories about this without detail, but my thought is that they really cannot move. The one case i heard a bit about is being solved by foreclosure. Basically: "OK, I am moving, you get the house, take it."

 

Much of the mobility of modern American living is job related. At the upper levels, no doubt any mortgage problems arising from a move will be handled either by the person himself or by the employer, maybe with a short term loan, maybe just a "We'll take care of that". The guy who made a living changing piston rings for a now closed auto shop won't have access to that sort of assistance.

[y66]

Do you have any answers to that question?

 

Bill Moyers offers an explanation for the anger of quite a few voters: Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!".

 

Enjoyed that, esp. that Alice Walker poem and Zinn's "Is this a private fight" line. Plutocrats are most definitely the elites of the new zombie class and John Boehner is their main minion. Scary.

 

Even scarier that Obama doesn't get this. Will he find his inner Tallahassee in 2011? I am not betting my last box of Twinkies.

[PassedOut]

any particular bullshit you're speaking of?

Too Good to Check

 

Instead of giving specifics, [Representative Michele] Bachmann [of Minnesota, a Republican and Tea Party favorite] used her airtime to inject a phony story into the mainstream. She answered: “I think we know that just within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He’s taking 2,000 people with him. He’ll be renting over 870 rooms in India, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending.”

Rush Limbaugh talking about Obama’s trip: “In two days from now, he’ll be in India at $200 million a day.” Then Glenn Beck, on his radio show, saying: “Have you ever seen the president, ever seen the president go over for a vacation where you needed 34 warships, $2 billion — $2 billion, 34 warships. We are sending — he’s traveling with 3,000 people.” In Beck’s rendition, the president’s official state visit to India became “a vacation” accompanied by one-tenth of the U.S. Navy. Ditto the conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage. He said, “$200 million? $200 million each day on security and other aspects of this incredible royalist visit; 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents.”

I know people who actually listen to these bullshit artists.

[kenberg]

I also know such people, of course. In order to grasp how this happens, you have to understand that they do not regard the fact that the claims are false as being particularly relevant. Their view is summarized as: Obama is bad. Perhaps he really is a citizen. Doesn't matter, he's bad. Perhaps the trip didn't cost $200,000,000 per day. So what, he's bad. There will be a new story tomorrow. It will be equally false, and that will be equally irrelevant. If Michelle Bachmann were to say "Oh, I guess I got that wrong, I must try to be more careful", that would be news. She doesn't care, and her followers do not care,that the story comes from a source with no actual information or that it is unchecked. They don't care that it is false. If anything, false is a little better: If I guy is felled by his own mistakes, he can learn from them. Doing a guy in with total fabrication provides him with no way to cope.

[PassedOut]

She doesn't care, and her followers do not care,that the story comes from a source with no actual information or that it is unchecked. They don't care that it is false. If anything, false is a little better: If I guy is felled by his own mistakes, he can learn from them. Doing a guy in with total fabrication provides him with no way to cope.

Mitch McConnell has stated that the republican goal is simply to defeat Obama in 2012. To that end, any attempt by Obama to get folks back to work before the election must be blocked. And so we see this: Axis of Depression.

 

Meanwhile, the incoherent: Two Republicans, Mike Pence in the House and Bob Corker in the Senate, have called on the Fed to abandon all efforts to achieve full employment and focus solely on price stability. Why? Because unemployment remains so high. No, I don’t understand the logic either.

 

So what’s really motivating the G.O.P. attack on the Fed? Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues were clearly caught by surprise, but the budget expert Stan Collender predicted it all. Back in August, he warned Mr. Bernanke that “with Republican policy makers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,” they would be “opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.” In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.

Economic hardship as the path to election glory? What a bunch of jerks.

[luke warm]

Yes, I am already learning Chinese to prepare myself for the next masters.

i for one welcome our billions of asian overlords

[PassedOut]

Most of us have noticed that many folks in the US (not me and not you, but many others) change their minds about substantive issues the moment the other political party takes power. Seems like people root for a political party like they do for a football team, no matter what the reality happens to be. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote about that yesterday: The Partisan Mind.

 

Instead of assessing every policy on the merits, we tend to reverse-engineer the arguments required to justify whatever our own side happens to be doing. Our ideological convictions may be real enough, but our deepest conviction is often that the other guys can’t be trusted.

 

How potent is the psychology of partisanship? Potent enough to influence not only policy views, but our perception of broader realities as well. A majority of Democrats spent the late 1980s convinced that inflation had risen under Ronald Reagan, when it had really dropped precipitously. In 1996, a majority of Republicans claimed that the deficit had increased under Bill Clinton, when it had steadily shrunk instead. Late in the Bush presidency, Republicans were twice as likely as similarly situated Democrats to tell pollsters that the economy was performing well. In every case, the external facts mattered less than how the person being polled felt about the party in power.

As funny as it looks when the talking heads completely reverse themselves on every issue once the "other team" takes office, it is just as sobering to observe how few folks notice it. Their worldview trumps hard evidence every time. I hope Ross Douthat comes back to this theme now and then.

[helene_t]

(not me and not you, but many others)

I'm afraid cognitive dissonance is universal. Not restricted to "many others". Not restricted to politics (and football). Not restricted to USA.

[y66]

I am often guilty of the partisan mindset Douthat describes although I think I've actually become somewhat more circumspect and less reflexive about a lot of stuff, not just politics, as a result of reading some of the thoughtful posts on this forum, esp. the bridge related posts. :)

[kenberg]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

 

 

I freed myself from this hobgoblin long ago. Whatever a hobgoblin is.

 

There are times when I think one of the necessary qualifications for success in politics is the ability to on Wednesday be passionately in favor of something that you were passionately against on Tuesday, and to be totally oblivious to any sense of the contradiction.